The state should respect the wishes of Christian Scientist parents who do not prefer having their children to receive standard medical treatment. In the case of Union Pacific Railway Company v Botsfod, the US Supreme Court held that parents should have informed consent before allowing medical practitioners attend to their children except in life threatening situations where the life of the child is in jeopardy. Parents understand the physical and emotional status of their children and therefore, parents should control them in an effort to raise children in their own status (Sanders 190). Apart from that, parents care about their children; for this reason, they are better as compared to outsiders, in identifying and addressing the needs of their children. The state should realize that, for family relationships to be strengthened there is the need for families to be allowed to have sufficient space and indeed consent over the management of the affairs of their children.
Sometimes, some parents consider that allowing their children to receive medical treatment would expose them to other pathogens; therefore, they would rather pray to God to heal and cure them because they believe diseases are punishment from God (Hall 1). In line with this, the state should practice democracy and respect these ideas; however, not in all cases because in extreme situations, there might be a need for the state to force the parent to allow the child to receive medical treatment.
On the other hand, the State should not allow Christian Scientist parents block their children from receiving medical treatment. In situations where the cure to the child would prefer others in the same locality from the disease, or condition, then the state should not rely on consent from such parents (Diekema 250). However, it is important to notice that, a parent could take legal action against the state upon any liability to the child.
Works cited
Diekema, Douglas. "Parental refusal of medical treatment: The harm principle as threshold for state Intervention. ." Theoretical Medicine 25.1 (2004): 243-264. Print.
Hall, Hariet. "Science-Based Medicine." Faith Healing: Religious Freedom vs. Child Protection. Version 1. Science-Based Medicine, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/>.
Sanders, Randolph K.. Christian counseling ethics: a handbook for psychologists, therapists and pastors. Second ed. Texas: Austin: InterVarsity Press, 2013. Print.
Tubbs, James B.. Christian theology and medical ethics: four contemporary approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. Print.
